An epidural blood patch causing acute neurologic dysfunction necessitating a decompressive laminectomy.

OBJECTIVES: One risk with placement of an epidural blood patch (EDBP) is spinal cord or nerve root compression resulting from the epidural blood volume injected, a complication necessitating immediate surgical decompression. We could not find a previous report of this in the literature. Here, we review and discuss one such case. CASE REPORT: A patient was treated with 2 EDBPs for a presumptive cerebrospinal fluid leak 3 weeks after an epidural steroid injection. The second EDBP was performed under direct fluoroscopic guidance, yet resulted in spinal cord compression with radiologic evidence of an epidural hematoma. The patient developed acute cauda equina syndrome and required an emergent decompressive laminectomy resulting in partial resolution of neurological symptoms. One year after the procedure, the patient has recovered most of her motor function but with some persistent numbness below the left knee and a left foot drop. CONCLUSIONS: A cauda equina syndrome from an epidural hematoma may occur as a rare complication of an EDBP, even with direct fluoroscopic guidance. Early diagnosis of symptoms and prompt surgical evacuation of an epidural hematoma is essential and may result in the resolution of symptoms. This complication remains a rare occurrence and should not deter the performance of an EDBP, when indicated.

Patient injuries from anesthesia gas delivery equipment: a closed claims update.

BACKGROUND: Improvements in anesthesia gas delivery equipment and provider training may increase patient safety. The authors analyzed patient injuries related to gas delivery equipment claims from the American Society of Anesthesiologists Closed Claims Project database over the decades from 1970s to the 2000s. METHODS: After the Institutional Review Board approval, the authors reviewed the Closed Claims Project database of 9,806 total claims. Inclusion criteria were general anesthesia for surgical or obstetric anesthesia care (n = 6,022). Anesthesia gas delivery equipment was defined as any device used to convey gas to or from (but not involving) the airway management device. Claims related to anesthesia gas delivery equipment were compared between time periods by chi-square test, Fisher exact test, and Mann-Whitney U test. RESULTS: Anesthesia gas delivery claims decreased over the decades (P < 0.001) to 1% of claims in the 2000s. Outcomes in claims from 1990 to 2011 (n = 40) were less severe, with a greater proportion of awareness (n = 9, 23%; P = 0.003) and pneumothorax (n = 7, 18%; P = 0.047). Severe injuries (death/permanent brain damage) occurred in supplemental oxygen supply events outside the operating room, breathing circuit events, or ventilator mishaps. The majority (85%) of claims involved provider error with (n = 7) or without (n = 27) equipment failure. Thirty-five percent of claims were judged as preventable by preanesthesia machine check. CONCLUSIONS: Gas delivery equipment claims in the Closed Claims Project database decreased in 1990-2011 compared with earlier decades. Provider error contributed to severe injury, especially with inadequate alarms, improvised oxygen delivery systems, and misdiagnosis or treatment of breathing circuit events.

Operating room fires: a closed claims analysis.

BACKGROUND: To assess patterns of injury and liability associated with operating room (OR) fires, closed malpractice claims in the American Society of Anesthesiologists Closed Claims Database since 1985 were reviewed. METHODS: All claims related to fires in the OR were compared with nonfire-related surgical anesthesia claims. An analysis of fire-related claims was performed to identify causative factors. RESULTS: There were 103 OR fire claims (1.9% of 5,297 surgical claims). Electrocautery was the ignition source in 90% of fire claims. OR fire claims more frequently involved older outpatients compared with other surgical anesthesia claims (P < 0.01). Payments to patients were more often made in fire claims (P < 0.01), but payment amounts were lower (median $120,166) compared to nonfire surgical claims (median $250,000, P < 0.01). Electrocautery-induced fires (n = 93) increased over time (P < 0.01) to 4.4% claims between 2000 and 2009. Most (85%) electrocautery fires occurred during head, neck, or upper chest procedures (high-fire-risk procedures). Oxygen served as the oxidizer in 95% of electrocautery-induced OR fires (84% with open delivery system). Most electrocautery-induced fires (n = 75, 81%) occurred during monitored anesthesia care. Oxygen was administered via an open delivery system in all high-risk procedures during monitored anesthesia care. In contrast, alcohol-containing prep solutions and volatile compounds were present in only 15% of OR fires during monitored anesthesia care. CONCLUSIONS: Electrocautery-induced fires during monitored anesthesia care were the most common cause of OR fires claims. Recognition of the fire triad (oxidizer, fuel, and ignition source), particularly the critical role of supplemental oxygen by an open delivery system during use of the electrocautery, is crucial to prevent OR fires. Continuing education and communication among OR personnel along with fire prevention protocols in high-fire-risk procedures may reduce the occurrence of OR fires.